A newly uncovered County Court Judgment (CCJ), registered in January 2026, appears to directly contradict repeated public denials surrounding the legal identity connected to Jayne’s Baby Bank. This follows our earlier investigation into the unpaid 2024 judgment registered under the name “Ceri-Ann Ridsdale” trading as Jayne’s Baby Bank, which readers can reference separately.
The newly identified court record is different for one critical reason. It is not registered under a variant such as “Ceri-Ann Ridsdale”. Instead, the judgment is registered under the name:
MISS CARRIE-ANNE RIDSDALE
This is significant because the identity “Carrie-Anne Ridsdale” has repeatedly been disputed, denied, minimised, or framed publicly as either incorrect or unrelated.
What the newly uncovered judgment shows
According to the official TrustOnline registry, the following unsatisfied judgment appears on the Register of Judgments, Orders and Fines:
- Name shown on the record: MISS CARRIE-ANNE RIDSDALE
- Address shown on the record: 7 Meadow Road, Pontllanfraith, Blackwood, NP12 2AG
- Court: Civil National Business Centre
- Case number: M3DP9X7A
- Amount: £277
- Date of judgment: 27 January 2026
- Status: Unsatisfied
The same TrustOnline report also references the previously documented £7,141 judgment recorded against: CERI-ANN RIDSDALE T/AS JAYNE’S BABY BANK.
Why this matters
The importance of this newly uncovered CCJ is not the amount. The significance is the identity.
For a considerable period, the name Carrie-Anne Ridsdale has been publicly challenged, denied, or treated as though it were unrelated to the individual operating publicly as “Jayne Price”. However, this newly registered court judgment places the exact name MISS CARRIE-ANNE RIDSDALE directly onto an official court register, linked to the same residential address repeatedly connected to Jayne’s Baby Bank operations and associated records.
This substantially strengthens the already documented identity continuity pattern involving:
- Jayne Price
- Jayne-Anne Price
- Carrie Anne Ridsdale
- Carrie-Anne Ridsdale
- Ceri-Ann Ridsdale
all appearing across:
- court judgments,
- electoral records,
- tenancy documentation,
- fundraising systems,
- regulatory filings,
- enforcement notices,
- and publicly posted identification documents.
The previous denial problem
This latest judgment becomes especially relevant when viewed alongside earlier public statements denying that the previous CCJ related to her at all. As documented previously, claims were made publicly that the £7,141 judgment was “not even my name” and that there were “no legal documents” connected to the operation.
The January 2026 judgment materially weakens that position because:
- it uses the Carrie-Anne Ridsdale identity directly,
- it is linked to the same residential address,
- and it appears on the same official court registry system.
In practical terms, the pattern is no longer limited to a single spelling variation such as “Ceri-Ann”. The newly uncovered record now places the exact Carrie-Anne Ridsdale identity onto the formal court register itself.
Identity consistency and public trust
People can lawfully use preferred names, aliases, maiden names, married names, or rebrand publicly. That alone is not misconduct.
However, where public donations, CIC operations, baby bank fundraising, community trust, and public-benefit branding are involved, identity consistency becomes a legitimate public-interest issue.
Donors, regulators, suppliers, councils, landlords, and members of the public are entitled to understand:
- who liabilities are registered against,
- which legal identity controls fundraising operations,
- and whether multiple names refer to the same individual.
The issue is not merely “one typo” or “one spelling difference”. The records now show multiple formal identities repeatedly intersecting across enforcement, fundraising, trading, tenancy, and court contexts.
Sherlock